Recap Of 2024 US Election’s Vice Presidential Debate – OpEd
As US presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris will not have another debate, the vice presidential debate held last night was the last major debate of the 2024 election. As a political scientist, I watched, to get a different insight into the two competing presidential campaigns, and perhaps the future of American politics.
Here are my key takeaways
1. Civility:
After several presidential debates featuring Trump and his opponents, it was refreshing to watch a debate where two candidates were respectful toward each other and mostly focused on addressing their debate topics (some questions were dodged, but they may be part of the debate tactic).
2. Running Mates as Surrogates:
Tim Walz and JD Vance were civil in acknowledging each other's good intentions. However, both continuously reminded voters that the rival presidential candidate should not be trusted. (If Walz and Vance were the presidential candidates, they may have attacked each other more directly.)
3. Whose Presidential Record Is Better?
Vance's talking point was that Harris had her chance to govern for four years as Biden's VP but did a poor job. Walz reminded voters that Trump also had his chance to govern as president but did a terrible job. So, whose record is better—Trump’s or Biden/Harris's? What do U.S. voters think? (Some voters might believe both have poor records.)
4. Walz and Vance Acknowledge Their Views Have Changed:
Vance admitted he was once anti-Trump but was wrong about Trump and now supports his presidency. Walz admitted he was once pro-NRA and still supports the Second Amendment, but now supports more gun control. Some voters may view these changes as political opportunism, while others may see them as signs that people can change their political viewpoints over time (for better or worse).
5. What Walz and Vance Agreed On:
Both agreed that the federal government should help victims of the recent hurricane in the South. They agreed on the need for clean air and water, more paid leave options for mothers and families, and increased border control (Of course, both insisted their presidential candidate would handle these issues better.)
6. Israel and China:
While many Republicans may be losing enthusiasm for U.S. global leadership, Vance reaffirmed that Trump would support Israel in attacking Iran and that the U.S. would continue to pressure China. Walz was in agreement on these policies, and in fact, criticized Trump for not doing more to hold Iran and China accountable in his first term. (In today's US politics, there is still some bipartisanship on hawkish foreign policy.)
7. The Threat to Democracy:
Walz reminded voters that Trump's refusal to accept his previous election loss poses a major threat to American democracy. Vance, on the other hand, argued that the Biden administration’s and tech companies’ censorship posed an even bigger threat to democracy. (Vance did acknowledge that, if Walz were elected as Vice President, he would have his prayers and support.) A curious question I had was, right now, how important are A. Jan.6 Insurrection B. Tech Censorship as priorities for US voters? Vance and Walz may think they should be priorities.
8. Moment of Humility, Moment of Condescension:
Whether genuine or not, Vance expressed humility on the issue of abortion, stating that his party needs to work harder to gain the trust of American voters. However, on the economy and trade, Vance expressed condescension, claiming that experts with PhDs were wrong on free trade and do not understand "common-sense economics." My takeaway is that Vance may have perceived the current US public mood as more favorable toward trade protection but less favorable toward abortion regulations, so adapted the tone of his messaging on the two policy topics.
Final Thoughts:
Vance and Walz were faithful to their roles, speaking as vice-presidential candidates for their presidents. But since they are not serving as the president, how much influence will they have as VPs?
Particularly for Vance, who arguably articulated Trump’s policies better than Trump himself, I was particularly intrigued by Vance’s economic populism, which may or may not replace the Republican Party’s free-market conservatism, potentially creating a ripple effect in the liberal world order even in a post-Trump era.